David Mango v. Lilian Myers

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Lilian Myers appeals from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in David Mango’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Wood v. Moss, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2056, 2059 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1039 (2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2080 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011)).

Myers contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity because Mango’s constitutional right was not clearly established. A right is clearly established if “the state of the law at the time [of the adverse action] g[ave] officials fair warning that their conduct [was] unconstitutional.” Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, 710 F.3d 1049, 1064 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting Bull v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 595 F.3d 964, 1003 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc)). This is an objective standard and the defendant’s subjective understanding of the…